Michael Oliver to ref Liverpool v City - City lodge complaint

MillionMilesAway said:
Liverpool have only lost 11%, 37% draws is what's lowered the win %age.

All from whoscored

https://www.whoscored.com/Referees/89/Show/Michael-Oliver
Click to expand...

Interesting site that, thanks for the link.


What I learned from it is that this season Oliver has refereed Liverpool and City three times each. He has shown Liverpool players three yellow cards in total, even though Liverpool average 10.67 fouls per game, and City players five even though City average only 9 fouls a game. In other words, on average he shows Liverpool a yellow card every 10.67 fouls, whereas in respect of City he shows a yellow card on average every 5.4 fouls.


He is almost twice as likely this season to show a yellow card against us than against Liverpool.


For comparative purposes, this season on average he has also shown Burnley yellow cards after every 2.8 fouls, Chelsea every 3.2 fouls, and Everton every 4.4 fouls. These are the only other teams he has reffed more than once this season. He gives Liverpool an average of one yellow card per game. For City it is 1.67 yellows per game, for Burnley, Chelsea and Everton it is all 2.5.


As regards City and Liverpool, these are remarkable turnarounds in statistical terms. Over the course of his career, he has reffed Liverpool 35 times and shown 51 yellow cards, at an average of one yellow card every 7.1 fouls, or 1.45 yellows every game. He has reffed City 27 times, and the equivalent averages are 7.64 fouls per yellow card, and 1.33 yellows per game. So even though he has treated both teams broadly equally over the course of his career in terms of how often he shows yellow cards, this season he has become far tougher when reffing City and far more lenient when reffing Liverpool. (This is to say nothing about the fouls he doesn’t give, like the penalty claims at Anfield.)


His career statistics by the way show that the lowest average yellow cards per game any team has when Oliver is in charge is Fulham with 1.1 yellows per game, whereas the highest is Watford with 2.17. The rags average is 1.78 and Chelsea is 1.21. Liverpool this season are being refereed more leniently, in this sense, than any club has been throughout the entirety of his career.


In terms of whoever these teams are playing, he has shown yellow cards to the teams Liverpool were playing 7 times, at an average of one yellow every 3.14 fouls (2.33 yellows per game) and the teams City were playing twice, at an average of a yellow every 9 fouls, at an average of 0.67 per game. So if you are playing Liverpool this season you are more than 3 times more likely (by both yardsticks) to be shown a yellow card than if you are playing City. Again, for comparison purposes, the average yellows shown against the teams Burnley have played is 2 per game, for Chelsea it is 6 and for Everton it is 4.


Once again, these figures are very different for the career averages of City and Liverpool. Over the course of his career Oliver has shown yellow cards to the teams City were playing at an average of a yellow card every 5.3 fouls, or 1.85 yellows per game, and teams playing Liverpool every 7.6 fouls or 1.4 per game.


You are therefore three times more likely to get a yellow card playing against Liverpool with Oliver as referee than at any point in his career, and your chances of being shown a yellow by Oliver this season when playing against City are about half what they were at any other point in his career.


Is it any wonder they call him Michael Oliverpool?
 
As a point, total foul count is a terrible way to judge booking rate. Rodri was not booked for a foul this weekend, and automatically skews it.
A player could be penalised multiple times at attacking corners and not get booked, but it would add to a foul tally.

And, most of all, some fouls deserve bookings more than others. This is the bit that makes most assessments without context.
 
MillionMilesAway said:
As a point, total foul count is a terrible way to judge booking rate. Rodri was not booked for a foul this weekend, and automatically skews it.
A player could be penalised multiple times at attacking corners and not get booked, but it would add to a foul tally.

And, most of all, some fouls deserve bookings more than others. This is the bit that makes most assessments without context.
Click to expand...

In isolation maybe, but not as a second yardstick. Here the evidential value is not necessarily the fouls per yellow rate in itself but the contrast with how other clubs are judged and indeed how the same club has been judged in previous seasons.

One example might be the ‘totting up’ procedure. Some refs will give a yellow for persistent fouling after the third foul, others after four. The same ref however will probably be more or less consistent in his approach from game to game, season to season. Which is why when you start to notice sizeable deviations from the average, it becomes worthwhile to look at other issues.

There are in truth few ways in which you can demonstrate apparent bias because the judgment on, say, whether a tackle deserves a yellow is so subjective. But highlighting statistical anomalies is an objective way of pointing to an issue that may be worth further scrutiny.

It’s where the subjective assessments and the objective analysis both point to the same conclusion that you think ‘this is serious.’
 
Chris in London said:
In isolation maybe, but not as a second yardstick. Here the evidential value is not necessarily the fouls per yellow rate in itself but the contrast with how other clubs are judged and indeed how the same club has been judged in previous seasons.

One example might be the ‘totting up’ procedure. Some refs will give a yellow for persistent fouling after the third foul, others after four. The same ref however will probably be more or less consistent in his approach from game to game, season to season. Which is why when you start to notice sizeable deviations from the average, it becomes worthwhile to look at other issues.

There are in truth few ways in which you can demonstrate apparent bias because the judgment on, say, whether a tackle deserves a yellow is so subjective. But highlighting statistical anomalies is an objective way of pointing to an issue that may be worth further scrutiny.

It’s where the subjective assessments and the objective analysis both point to the same conclusion that you think ‘this is serious.’
Click to expand...

Oh, I agree that a conclusion could be drawn, I just think it's more complicated than simple stats. Any team with Andy Carroll on the pitch is going to have a high foul count!
 
Keeper! said:
The EPL Referees are totally out of there depth and their collective arrogance has no bounds.

There was a reason not one English referee was at the last World Cup....Utter incompetence!
Click to expand...
Yup, and/or does FIFA know something about EPL refs that we are now just suspecting?
 
paulchapo said:
The thing is we can complain as much as we want about individual refs, the orders and corruption are coming from the very top, the people we are complaining to. Riley is the ultimate rag weasel. I think he actually had the arrogance to say he won't give interviews. Who the fuck does he think he is??
Click to expand...
A very powerful corrupt liar.
 
Keeper! said:
Maybe, but I personally think the game is bent in most countries, far too much money involved for it not to be.
Click to expand...
Can't disagree with that logic. So it may be the other way? As bent as ours are suspected to be, they may not be bent enough for FIFA? Or just inept?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.